Of diuorcement A sermon preached at Pauls Crosse the 10. of May. 1601. By Iohn Doue, Doctor of Diuinitie.

A SERMON PREAched at Paules Crosse the 10. of Maye , 1601. Math. 19. verse . 9. I say vnto you , that whosoeuer shall put away his wife ( except it be for whoordome ) and marrie an other , committeth adulterie : and whosoeuer marrieth her which is diuorced , committeth adulterie .

AN answere to a question , propounded by the Pharisies to our Sauiour Christ , concerning diuorcement of Wiues from their Husbands , and by a consequent , of Husbands from their Wiues , whether it be lawfull or no ? The answere is negatiue , that no diuorcement is lawfull . For , first he sheweth that no man may put away his Wife for any cause . Secondly hee prooueth it , for as much as if any man hath put away his wife , hee hath done it of fact onely , and not of right , and his fact is held vnlawfull , according to Gods word , because hee may not marrie any other while she liueth . Thirdly , hee prooueth that hee which hath put away his wife can marrie no other while she liueth , because shee can marrie no other while he liueth . For these three conclusions do necessarily followe : The first . If the putting away of a mans wife be of this nature that still shee continueth his wife : then it is no diuorcement . The second : If the putting away of a mans wife be of that effect that shee is no longer his wife : then he is no longer her husband . The third : If shee be no more his wife , shee may marrie an other , and if he be no more her husband , he may marrie an other , therefore the knot of matrimonie is dissolued , and both are free . But our Sauiour teacheth that neither of them is at libertie to marrie againe , therefore that the bond of matrimony remaineth firme , and therfore that there can be no diuorcement . These things are easily apprehended , but the difficultie is , how these conclusions may be collected out of this text .

May it please you to vouchsafe mee your attention , and laying aside all preiudicate opinions , not to passe your censure against me before you haue heard all that I will say . For , if you come with preiudice your harts shal be made fat , ●sa. 6. 9. et● . your ears heauie , your eies blinde , as the Prophet speaketh , that hearing you shal not vnderstand , that seeing plainly you shal not perceiue . If ye condemne me before ye haue heard me , then do ye not followe the Apostles rule . 1. Thess. 5. 21. Omnia probate , quod bonum est tenete . trie all things , & hold onely that which is good : and then are ye not sincere hearers of Gods word , therefore heare and then iudge . If ye condemne this doctrine as erronious because to you it seemeth strange , and you do not sufficiently conceiue it ( I speak to the vnlearned ) then do you measure Gods truth by your owne errour , the power of God by your own weaknes , the depth of gods wisdome by the shallownes of your owne reach . Vrsinus before his Catechisme , alledgeth sixe reasons why men reading the scriptures ( albeit learned ) yet vnderstand then not , whereof one is preiudice , tenne why reading they profit but a litle , whereof fiue are these : ignorance of the true drift and scope of that which they read , they follow not the analogie of faith , they conteine not themselues within the bounds of diuinitie , they contemne the iudgement of the Interpreters , they stand too peremptorily vpon the bare word and letter . Among sixe rules which he giueth , for the better vnderstanding of any Text , one is a true desire to learne , and zealous intent to goe away better instructed . Another I adde of mine owne obseruation , which is this : the right vnderstanding of the Text , consisteth much in the true reading of the same ; for , if ye mistake in reading , ye cannot but faile in vnderstanding . And because many of this Auditory are defectiue in all these points , I desire you according to these Premisses , to heare me with indifferencie , and not with preiudice , as condemning me because Beza and Melancthon and others are of a contrarie opinion , to waigh well the true drift of our Sauiour in this Text , to follow analogiam fidei & loci , the analogie of faith in generall , and of this place in particular , to cōteìn your selues within the bounds of diuinitie , that ye harken to the Interpreters , I meane the auntient Fathers which were nearest to Christ , and farthest from corruption : that ye dwell not vpon bare and naked letters , that ye heare me with a desire to learne , and according to mine owne rule , that ye would heare how to read this Text , because many Diuines do not read it rightly , and therefore no maruell though they expound it falsely . For , legere & non intelligere est negligere , to read and not vnderstand , is not truly called reading , but mere negligence : Balthazar could read the Characters written by the hand in a wall , Dan. 5. ● 5. mene tekel peres hee hath numbred , he hath weighed , hee hath diuided : so could the wise men of Babell , but a more exact kinde of reading was required of Daniel , that was , to read and vnderstand , and he read it in more ample maner then it was written : God hath numbred thy Kingdome , and finished it , thou art weighed in a ballance and found too light , thy Kingdome is diuided and giuen to the Persians . Wherefore let vs not read cum neglectu sed cum intellectu , not ignorantly but intelligently ; not as Balthazar , but as Daniel ; as readers which know what they read , else it is in vaine to read .

I say vnto you , &c. In which assertion is a kind of Elleipsis or want of words , which defect , as it is verie common in the Greeke & Hebrew , so it is commonly supplied by the learned Reader and Translator , by addition of words to make the sence perfect , as Daniel did . Do not entertaine so irreligious an opinion of me as if I should adde any thing of mine owne vnto Gods word , & yet where the originall Text is obscure and vnperfect like vnto this , somewhat must be added out of Gods word , which by the circumstances of the place & very cōnection and coherence of it , doth appeare to be necessarily vnderstood , but so that the addition be printed in other characters , that it may be distinguished from the originall . And least this kinde of reading the scriptures should seeme straunge and insolent , Beza in his Latine translation of the new Testament dooth the like , not in so fewe as an hundred places , wee will instance for example sake . S. Paul writeth in this maner . 2. Thess. 2. 3 Let no man deceiue you by any meanes , for except there come a departure first , and the man of sinne be disclosed : which words are so imperfect , that they carrie no sence ; but Beza in his Latine translation readeth it otherwise , by adding these words in other characters : The day of the Lord shall not come . Let no man deceiue you by any meanes , for the day of the Lord shal not come , vnlesse there be a departure first , and the man of sinne bee disclosed . Which addition is necessarily vnderstood by the circumstances of the place , for in the next verse going before , hee shewed that the day of Christ was not so neare as the Thessalonians supposed , and in this verse he sheweth a reason : because there must come a departure first . Likewise in the same Chapter , S. Paules words are these : The mistery of iniquitie doth alreadie worke , Vers. 7. onely that which withholdeth , vntill it be taken away . Which Beza readeth in this maner : The misterie of iniquitie doth alreadie worke , onely that which withholdeth , shall withholde vntill it bee taken away : and so according to the office of a faithfull Translator , maketh that plaine in the translation which was obscure , by reason of the Elleipsis in the originall , and yet was not wanting in the originall because it was necessarily vnderstood . In like manner : this Text being Elleipticall or defectiue for want of words , and the sence of it obscure and darke ; wee must adde words in the English , but in other Characters , and read in this maner .

I say vnto you , that according to the permission of Moyses , He that putteth away his Wife vnlesse it be for whoordome , committeth adulterie , and if he marrie an other , he committeth adulterie : and whosoeuer marrieth her that is diuorced committeth adulterie . Which words , we must of necessitie vnderstand to be inserted , because else wee shall not onely leaue the sence maimed and imperfect , but also include a manifest contradiction to that which our Sauiour concluded in the words immediately going before , as I shall shewe vnto you . Wherefore our new Diuines for want of right reading this Text , do misconster it foure wayes . First , they thinke our Sauiour speaketh affirmatiuely that diuorcement is lawfull , whereas he speaketh negatiuely , that diuorcement is not lawfull . The second , they take this answer to bee particular ; as if in some one case , that is , in case of adulterie , and for some persons , as when one is nocent and the other innocent , diuorcement were lawfull , whereas it is vniuersall that no diuorcement is lawfull , be the case whatsoeuer , or the persons whosoeuer . The third , they suppose it to be hypotheticall , because he saith : whosoeuer putteth away his wife except it bee for fornication , &c. as if that were aequipollent with this : if a man putteth away his wife for fornication , it is no adulterie , whereas it is catagoricall , because this exception in the Parenthesis ( vnlesse it be for fornication ) is meerely voyd , and no exception at all , as I will make manifest vnto you , and of no more validitie then if it were left out . The fourth , they thinke that in these words are comprehended but two propositions , whereas there are three : for , though our Sauiour saith : Hee that putteth away his wife and marrieth an other committeth adulterie , naming adulterie but once , yet it is twise vnderstood , both in the putting away of his wife , and in the marrying of an other , and therfore all one as if he had said : he that putteth away his wife committeth adulterie by putting her away , and if he marrie an other , he committeth adulterie also by marrying an other , like that saying of our Sauiour : He that breaketh the least Commaundement and teacheth men so , shall be called the least in the kingdome of Heauen . Which words , do not import onely that the breach of the commandement together with so teaching , maketh a man the least in the kingdome of heauen , but also the breach it self , although he do not teach it , as S. Iames sheweth : so he that putteth away his wife committeth adultry , Iacob . 2. 10. though he doth not marry any other . Wherfore according to that which I haue deliuered vnto you , I diuide my text , as it naturally diuideth it selfe , into three propositions , the first beeing as a text , the other two as a glosse or exposition ; to wit , the second an exposition of the first , & the third an exposition of the second ; the first , which is the text , that there can be no diuorcement , where he saith : it is adultery for a man to put away his wife although he marry no other : the second , a proofe that there can be no diuorcement , because he which putteth away his wife can marry no other ; where he saith , it is adultry to marrie an other ; the third , a proofe of the second , that he which putteth away his wife can marrie no other , because his wife which is put away can marry no other . And of these three propositions in they due place .

Concerning the first proposition , that there can be no diuorcement , and that it is the drift of our Sauiour in this text to disanull all diuorcements .

I say vnto you , whosoeuer putteth away his wife ) I shewed you before , how there was an Elleipsis or want of words to be supplied . Not as though I would by that supply of words serue mine owne turne , or seeke to aduantage my selfe , for I neede not , and if we content our selues with the bare , naked and imperfect words of the Greeke text , which the aduersary vseth for his best and onely aduantage , no diuorcement can be prooued ot of them . That I may examine the bare words : who so putteth away his wife except it bee for fornication committeth adulterie : It is no good consequent that therefore if a man put away his wife for fornication , it is no adultery : nor this ; hee that putteth away his wife and marrieth an other , committeth adultry , therefore if he put her away & marry no other it is no adultry , as it may appeare by the like . Leuit. 1● . 1● Moses saith : Thou shalt not take a wife with her sister while shee liueth : will you therefore argue out of these words , that when a mans wife is dead , he may marrie her sister ? Our Sauiour saith : Marc. 16. 16 Whosoeuer beleeueth and is babtized , shall be saued . Will you therefore conclude against S. Ambrose that Theodosius the Emperour which did beleeue and was not baptised , was not saued ? The holy Ghost saith : Mat. 1. 18. Ioseph knew not Mary vntill shee had brought foorth her first borne sonne , & that Mary was found with childe before Ioseph and shee came together : will you therefore conclude with Heluidius the Hereticke against S. Ierome , Hieron . contra ●eluidium that Mary was not a perpetuall Virgin , and that shee was the mother of other children ? and that after the birth of Christ , Math. 28. Ioseph and Mary came together ? Our Sauiour saith , I will be with you till the end of the world . Paul saith , ● . Cor. 15. Christ shall sit on the right hand of his Father vntill he make his enemies his footestoole : Decretal . lib. 5. Tit. 40 cap. 6. verba intelligenda sunt , non secundum quodsonāt , sed secundum mentem proferentis , will you therefore conclude that Christ shall leaue vs after the end of the world ? or cease to sit on his fathers right hand after his enemies are subdued ? You will aske me then , if these words : ( Except it be for fornication ) be no exception , but meerely Idle , why doth our Sauiour vse them ? Hilar. Intelligentia dictorum ex causis est assumenda dicendi , quia non sermonires , sed reisermo est subiectus . or how can it stand with the nature of the holy Ghost to speake idlely ? These words are not idle , and yet make nothing in fauour of diuorcement . S. Augustine answereth in this maner . Si ille maechatur qui dimissâ vxore fornicatrice aliam ducit , cur ergo dominus interposuit causam fornicationis ? in●mo , cur non dicit simpliciter : qui dimissâ vxore aliam ducit , maechatur ? If he which putteth away an adulterous wife and marrieth an other , De adulterinis coniugijs . lib. 1. cap. 9. committeth adultery in so doing , why did our Sauiour put in this caution , saying , except it be for fornication ? Why did he not say rather absolutely , that he which putteth away his wife and marrieth an other committeth adulterie ? Quiae dominus illud quod grauius adulterium est commemorare voluit quam id quod est minus , nam grauius adulterium est pudicâ vxore dimissa aliam ducere quàm impudicâ , vt Iacobi quarto , scienti bonum facere & non facienti peccatum est illi , numquid idcirco peccatum est illi qui nescit bonum facere & , ideo non facit●vtrumque peccatum est , sed illud maius istud minus , ita in his adulterijs , sed vtrumque est adulterium . Because our Sauiour would speake of that adulterie especially which was most heinous , rather then of the other which is a lesse offence , for it is a more grieuous adulterie to put away a chaste wife and marry an other , then to put away a dishonest wife & marry again , euen as according to the Apostle . Iac. 4. 17. To him that knoweth how to do well , & doth it not , to him it is sin . Wil you therfore conclude , that to him which knoweth not how to doo wel , & therfore doth it not , to him it is no sin ? Both are sins , that greater and this lesser , so both these are adultry , though one be greater & the other lesser . But for your farther satisfaction , mine owne answer is this : These words of our Sauiour ( except it be for fornication ) do shew that the drift of our Sauiour was two-folde , to shew what was supposed to be lawfull by the permission of Moses , & what was indeed lawful according to the word of God , for they affoord two seueral constructions , secundum permissionem Mosaicam & veritatem euangelicam according to the permission of Moses , and the truth of the Gospell , according to Moses his permission , which was a man , and did like a man , diuorcement was permitted , onely in case of adulterie , but according to the immutable and incorrupt veritie of the scriptures , Christ denieth diuorcement to be lawfull , as by the analogy of this place doth appeare . For , when our Sauiour saith : wherefore I say vnto you : marke vpon what occasion our Sauiour doth say these things vnto them ? conferre the beginning of the Dialogue or conference of the Pharisies and our Sauiour , with the end of the same , and his purpose will appeare . Wherevpon doth our Sauiour deliuer this definitiue sentence concerning diuorcement vnto them , but vpon their falsifying and belying the words of Moses , which hee restoreth to the true sence and meaning thereof ? In the beginning of the conference , the Pharisies asked Christ tempting him & saying : Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for euery fault , making no mention of marrying againe ? He answereth , it is not lawfull for any fault , and prooueth his deniall by arguments drawne ; first from the nature of marriage , that which is but one cannot be diuided , vnitas est indiuisibilis , but the man and wife are one ; therefore they cannot be diuided . The Maior is a principle in Arithmaticke , Gen. 2. 14. 1. and cannot be denied : the Minor is Ipse dixit a principle in diuinitie . Cor. 6. 16 Secondly , Eph. 5. 3. from the definition of diuorcement , no man can seuer them whom God hath ioyned together , but to diuorce , is to seuer man and wife , whom God hath ioyned together , Deut. 24. and this in effect is all that may be saide of this question . But , the Pharisies not satisfying themselues with this answere , reply against it , and presse him with the authoritie of the scriptunre . Moyses say they , commaunded the man to giue his wife a Bill of diuorcement and put her away . Hee answereth them , that in so alleadging the words of Moyses , they falsifie the Texte three maner of wayes . First , whereas they say Moyses commaunded , it is not so , for Moyses did but suffer them for the hardnesse of theyr hearts ; Math. 5. there is great difference betweene a commaundement and a tolleration , they be of sundrie natures . In deed our Sauiour saith It hath bene said : Let him giue her a Bill of diuorcement . Which words doo import a commaundement , but by whom was it said ? only by the Iewes , according to their receiued errour , for God neuer said it , as also in the same place : Yee haue heard how it hath bene said , thou shalt loue they neighbour and hate thine enemie . Math. 5. 43. But if ye read the place of scripture to which it hath relation , Leuit. 19. 18 ye shall finde they haue misreported of it : for there is mention onely of the loue of our neighbour , If any obiect that the history is otherwise related in Marke ▪ I answere with Greg ▪ Decretal . lib. 5. Tit. 40. cap. 7. Nihil obstat narrandi diuersit as &c. not of the hatred of our enemie , that is but their owne collection . Secondly , whereas they build vpon this tolleration of Moyses , it is no sufficient foundation to ground vpon , because Moyses in this his tolleration did not permit diuorcement as a thing honest and lawfull , but that he did as a man , to beare with the hardnesse of their hearts , dispence with them in this case , contrary to Gods word , where hee saith : From the beginning it was not so . But whatsoeuer is contrary to the first institution of marriage as it was in the beginning appointed of God is adulterie . For we are not to regard the receiued errour of the Iewes , but the truth of Iesus Christ ▪ as Ignatius saith ad Philadelp . Vrsinus Doctr. Christ . 2. parte , in 7. praecep. Scopus precepti non maechaberis , est conseruatio castitatis & munitio coniugij . Quicquid ergò facit ad castitarem & muniendum coniugium , hâc Jege praecipitur , contrarium prohibetur . Sub adulterio prohibentur omnia vitia castitati contraria , & corum cognatae species , causae , occasiones , effectus , antecedentia , consequentia . Antiquitas mea Iesus Christus est . My antiquitie is Iesus Christ . And S. Ambrose : de virginibus : Nos noua quae Christus non docuit iure damnamus , quoniam via fidelibus Christus est , si ergo Christus non docuit quod docemus , nos illud detestabile iudicamus . Wee doo iustly condemne all doctrine as noueltie which Christ hath not taught , because he is the onely teacher whom the faithful must follow : if therefore Christ be not the author of that which is taught , wee adiudge it a damnable doctrine that is taught . And Cyprian Lib. 2. Epist. 3. Si solus Christus audiendus est , non debemus attendere quid aliquis antè nos faciendum putauerit , sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit neque sequi oportet hominis consuetudinem sed dei veritatem . If the sheepe of Christ doo heare his voyce onely , wee must not bee inquisitiue what others haue done before vs , but what Christ which is before all hath appointed to vs , neither must we follow the customes of man , but the truth of God . Bigamy was permitted to the Patriarkes , yet vnlawfull : so diuorcement to the Iewes , though vnlawfull . It were very hard if our Sauiour hauing thus pronounced diuorcement to bee vnlawfull and repugnant to Gods institution , should in this text being the next verse following after , contradict himselfe and allowe it to be lawful . Thirdly , whereas they falsifie Moses , as if Moses did tollerate diuorcement for any cause , saying : Is it lawfull for a man to put away his wife for any fault ? Our Sauiour doth lay before them their errour , affirming that Moses in that place which they alleadge , did not permit diuorcement for any cause but onely for one cause , and that cause is heere specified to be adulterie , where he saith : whosoeuer ( according to Moses his permission ) putteth away his wife except it be for whoordome , committeth adulterie . And yet he explaineth that againe saying : that according to truth he cannot put her away for adulterie , because he can marry no other , neither can she marry any other , but both shall be adulterous . But , for the better satisfying of your selues , conferre this place of Mathew , with that of Deuteronomie , which is the ground of all this disputation , and you shal finde that the Pharisies haue not dealt ingenuously , but very falsely .

The words of Moses are these . Deut. 24. If a man take a wife , if so be that she find no fauour in his eyes because he hath espied some filth in her . There is the onely cause , hee doth not say any cause , but one cause , which is filth ; but filth is according to the Hebrew phrase adulterie , as it appeareth by the fourth verse of the same Chapter , where whoordome is called by the generall name of filth . So these words of our Sauiour are not onely a farther explanation of that texte of Deuteronomie which the Pharisies had corrupted , but also a definitiue sentence , and positiue point of doctrine , that diuorcement being so common , was helde among the hard-hearted Iewes as lawfull , because it was suffered by Moses , contrarie to the commandement of God , and first institution of marriage , which was from the beginning of the world . Moreouer , because the Pharisies aske why did Moses command to giue a Bill of diuorcement and put her away ? and Christ answereth ; Moses did but permit : some Diuines do grossely mistake the sence thereof , affirming these words to include partly a commaundement , according to the words of the Pharisies , partly a tolleration according to the words of Christ ; to wit , a tolleration onely to put away their wiues , and a commaundement that if they would vse the libertie of this tolleration graunted vnto them , yet that they should first giue a Bill of diuorcement , that all proceedings might be according to order , but they are deceiued by reading the vulgar translation , and other corrupt Interpreters , for they translate it : Let him write her a Bill of diuorcement ; which translation hath brought them into this errour . But according to the Hebrew , Tremelius translateth in this maner : If a man take a wife and shee finde no fauour in his eyes , because he hath espied filth in her , in so much that he do giue her a Bill of diuorcement , &c. Here is no such commaundement , as let him giue her a Bill ; but onely a supposition , if he doo giue her a Bill of diuorcement , ( because vnlesse the Bill were first giuen , Vide Chrysost. in Lib. de libel . repud . the diuorcement was not tollerated ) so that Moses is so farre from commaunding , that he doth not so much as tollerate it in expresse words , but onely pèr tacitum consensum , by not forbidding it expresly , & so supposing such an enormitie to bee committed according to their practise ; onely he commaundeth this , that after it is done , if the woman after her departure marrie an other , that then shee shall not returne to her first husband againe .

And , whereas some Diuines take it prò concesso , as a thing graunted , that the formall writing a Bill of diuorcement , did ratifie the diuorcement & make an act lawfull , it is cleane contrary . You will say then , if the Bill could not adde strength to the diuorcement to make it good , L. Ideser , dom. in monte why was it giuen ? S. Augustine answereth , that a Bill of diuorcement was first deuised to shewe the Iewes how vngodly a thing diuorcement was , for as much as it was lawful for none to write Bills of diuorcement , but onely the Scribes and learned Doctors of the Lawe , to whom onely it appertained by their office , scribere sacras liter as to write in the holy tongue , and because it was euen among them held for a crucell and vnnaturall fact for a man to put away his wife , and this Bill of diuorcement could not bee ingrossed suddenly , but it required time and space : when the plaintiue resorted to the Scribes office to haue the Bill drawne , the Scribe was first to lay open to the partie grieued the vnlawfulnesse of such proceedings , and to perswade him by all meanes to desist from so badde a purpose , and bee reconciled to his wife againe , and to take better deliberation , and repaire to the office some other time , to trie if the partie grieued could by such delayes be better aduised in colde bloud . But if so be that hee continued obstinate and vntractable , that his hatred towards his wife could not be pacisied ; then of two euils the least was chosen , to auoyd a greater mischiefe : rather then the Iewe should murther his wife , it was vltimum refugium , the onely refuge left , to giue a Bill of diuorcement . Tremelius in his notes vpon this place , obserueth these foure things : First , that this tolleration of which we spake , did extend onely to that time present , when they were in the wildernesse , and not to be endured after they should liue vnder a setled estate in the land of Canaan , because it is written in the fourth verse of that Chapter , Thou shalt not suffer the land to sinne , which the Lord shall giue thee to inherit ; so that there was an inhibition or restraint against Iosue and his successors that they should suffer no diuorcements . The second , that this fact was euen then manifestly condemned by Moses when it was permitted , because hee saith in the 4. verse : The woman which is put away and marrieth an other , is polluted by the fact of her husband which did put her away , and so giue her occasion to marry an other , and that is abhomination in the sight of the Lord . The third , that diuorcement is as vnlawfull as poligamy or marriage of many wiues , of which neither haue any warrant out of the word , but that the Iewes liuing then not by precept but by example , not of the godly , Gen. 4. but of the wicked , learned poligamy of their fathers , of which the first was Lamech , and diuorcement of the Aegyptians , which were Infidels . The fourth , this tolleration of Moses was not in regard of Gods people in generall , but onely of the Iewes in particular , which could not by any arguments be perswaded to renounce the poligamy of their auncestors , or diuorcement of the Aegyptians .

Hauing spoken of the analogy of this place in particular , to shewe that the purpose of our Sauiour Christ was to disanull diuorcement : I come to the analogy of faith in generall , to shew what faith it selfe hath taught vs to beleeue concerning this question . Whosoeuer putteth away his wife , &c. which words giue me occasion to define diuorcement , and to shewe what it is for a man to put away his wife . In which definition I must followe the example of Aristotle , which defined the things which were not . For when hee hadde shewed howe impossible it was , that there should be either vacuum or infinitum , yet defined them both , onely supposing those things to bee , which the nature of things doth not afforde . In like maner I say : Diuortium est non ens ; diuorcement is a thing which is not , nor cannot bee , and that the Iewes did diuorce their wiues onely in their grosse imaginations , because being put away , yet they continued their wiues , and their seperation was breach of wedlocke , euen as in the story of Elisaeus , they which came to apprehend the Prophet were strooken with blindnesse , so that when they thought they were at Dothan , 2. Reg. 6. Gen. 3. 8. Ionas . 1. their eyes being opened they found that they were in Samaria : and as Adam , when he thought to hide himselfe from God in the thicket , was still in his presence : and as Ionas thought himselfe safe from daunger by flying to Tharsis , when he was most in ieopardie : so they thinke themselues innocent by giuing Bills of diuorcement , when they liue in adulterie and are nocent ; but supposing that to bee which cannot bee , I will define diuorcement out of the scriptures , to prooue that there can be no diuorcement . Our Sauiour saith : Whom God hath ioyned let no man seperate . In which words , is conteined the definition of diuorcement , Diuortium est seperatio viri & coni●gis authoritate humanâ qui coniuncti sunt authoritate diuinâ . Diuorcement is a seperation of man and wife by the law of man , which are ioyned together by the lawe of God . But that is an impossibilitie that man should make a nullitie of that which God will haue to continue firme and stable , that man should vndoo , & make to be of no validitie , which God doth ratifie & make to stand good : that mans errour should make an vnitie to be a number , an indiuisible thing to be diuided , truth to be no truth , marriage to be no marriage , something to be nothing , set them at libertie which in nature do , & must continue bound . Our Sauiour Christ hath thus defined diuorcement as you haue heard , and out of his owne definition of diuorcement , hath argued to prooue that there can be no diuorcement ; and if ye will stand to the definition of our Sauiour Christ , you must confesse that there can be no diuorcement .

The same may also be prooued by the definition of marriage , Lo●o com ▪ de coniugio . which Melancthon defineth in this maner . Matrimonium est legitima & in dissolubilis coniunctio vnius maris & vnius faeminae . Marriage is a lawfull and indissoluble ioyning together of one man and one woman . But , if marriage be such a coniunction as is not capable of any dissolution as he tearmeth it : Loco com ▪ de diuortio . hee forgetteth himselfe in the next tract after , where hee affirmeth that for adulterie a man may put away his wife and marry an other , that if a man bee boysterous , froward , cyclopicall , barbarous to his wife , if hee bee crabbed , rogish , the wife may put him away and marry an other : that if hee neglect his family , the Magistrate may warrant her to marry an other . Others doo define marriage to the same effect as Melancthon did , but in more wordes : That marriage is a lawfull and perpetuall ioyning together of man and wife by the consent of them both , for the begetting of children , auoyding fornication , and mutuall comfort . In which definition , the materiall cause of marriage is man and woman , the finall cause mutuall comfort , procreation , auoydance of sin : the efficient cause the mutuall consent of them both , but the formal cause which is the very nature , essence , and life of the same , is their lawfull and perpeutal ioyning together , but whatsoeuer is to a man perpetuall , is during life : these thinges being so , it cannot stand with faith that marriage should bee dissolued , Rom. 7. 2. the parties liuing . The Apostle saith therefore : The woman which is in subiection to the man , is bound by the law to the man while he liueth , but if the man be dead , she is deliuered from the law of the man ; in which words hee sheweth how the knot of marriage cannot be vntied but by death . 1. Cor. 7. 16 And to the married I commaund , not I , but the Lord : let not the wife depart from her husband , but if shee depart , let her remaine vnmarried , or be reconciled vnto her husband : In which words , where hee saith : first , let not the wife depart , secondly , if she depart , let her remaine vnmarried ; he intimateth two maner of departures , the first , is a vinculo , a rupture of the knot of marriage : the second a mensâ & thoro , from bed and boord ; the first he saith may not bee , because it is contrary to the institution of marriage ; the second , if vnhappily it followe , that for the incontinencie of the one partie , the other partie be grieued and cannot be reconciled vnlesse they depart , yet that departure be but for a season , vntil they can be reconciled againe , and that is no diuorcement . For there are three departures from the marriage bedde which are lawfull , two priuate , the third publike : the first with the consent of both parties , 1. Cor. 7. 5. one dispensing with the other , where the Apostle saith : Defraud not one an other , except it be with consent for a time , that yee may giue your selues to fasting and prayer , and againe come together , least Sathan tempt you for your incontinencie . The second , in case of necessitie , it is lawfull for the man to dispense with himselfe , as if the woman be infected with a contagious disease , that hee cannot doo the office of an husband without manifest daunger of his life , and it is no fraude because it is not voluntarie . The third , if the wife be an adulteresse woman , because it is a publike scandall , he may by the publike magistrate be seperated from his wife for her chastisement vntill shee shew manifest tokens of amendment . And yet as the Magistrate must be very sparing to interpose his authoritie in such a case , Tho. Aqui. in 1. Cor. 7. as to enter betweene the barke and the tree : so againe , there be seuen exceptions which debarre the Magistrate from graunting any seperation from bedde and boord , although incontinencie be euidently prooued : as , if the woman be inforced by violence not giuing consent , Gen. 24 . as Dinah was : if by plaine and simple ouersight shee bee deceiued , Gen. 29. taking one for an other , as Iacob was when Laban put Leah in his bedde in steed of Rachel : if the woman by great presumptions in lawe , and the generall view of the world , supposing her husband by his long absence to be dead , doo by publike allowance without guilt of conscience marry an other : if her husbande himselfe be consenting to her adultery , as Sara gaue her maide Agar to lie with Abram , Gen. 16. for then it is his fault as well as hers : if hee by refusing to accompany with her hath abused her weaknesse and so giuen her occasion to fall , he cannot with a good conscience be a plaintiue against her : if he knowing his wife to bee incontinent do beare with her for the present time , hee ought not afterward to complain , because lawe doth suppose a reconciliation & forgiuenesse of the crime , and after forgiuenesse there ought to bee no punishment . But the greatest occasion is this : if the woman be able to plead compensation against her husband ; Iohn . 8. that is , if he haue bene incontinent as well as she , as our Sauiour wrote with his finger in the dust concerning the woman taken in the act of adulterie : Hee which will throwe the first stone at her must be guiltlesse himselfe . Grat. decret ▪ pars ricausa 32. The Canon lawe saith : quaest. 6. Nihil iniquius quàm fornicationis causâ dimittere vxorem qui & ipse conuincitur fornicari , cap. 1. ex Aug. dè ser. in monte . occurrit enim illud : qui alterum iudicas teipsum condemnas . Qua propter quisquis vult fornicationis causâ dimittere vxorem , cap. 8. prior debet esse à fornicatione purgatus . Rom. 8. Nothing can lesse stand with iustice then that an adulterer should put away an adulteresse , for in iudging her , according to the rule of the Apostle he condemneth himselfe ; therfore he which wil accuse his wife , must first looke well that he be cleare himselfe . Againe : Ro. cap. ● . Quales vultis vxores vestras inuenire , tales sitis & vos , intactam quaeris , intactus esto , puram quaeris , noli esse impurus . Be to your wiues as you will that they shal be to you ; will you haue them continent , your selues must be chaste ; he which will haue his wife to be Sara , himselfe must be Abraham ; he which will haue his wife to be Rebecca , himselfe must be Isaac ; he which will haue his wife to bee Rachel , himselfe must bee Iacob ; hee which will haue his wife to bee Elizabeth , himselfe must bee Zachary . And I counsell all hard-hearted husbands , which seeke diuorcement from their wiues , to consider if they themselues haue not bene some occasion of that euill which they lay to their charge ? whether compensation may iustly be pleaded against them or not ? and to remember the story of Iudah , Gen. 3● . which iudged his daughter in lawe Thamar worthy of death for playing the harlot , whom he himselfe had defiled , not knowing her because her maske was on her face , but vpon the sight of a cloake , a staffe and a ring which hee had left with her , confessed her to be more righteous then himselfe . But none of these seperations which I haue rehearsed , can vntie the knot of matrimonie , neither are they to bee intended to continue for euer , but for a time , therefore they are no diuorcement . S. Chrysostome saith : Lib. de libello repudij . Ne mihi leges ab exteris conditas legas praecipientes dari ●ibellum repudij , & diuell● . Neque enim iuxta illas iudicaturus est te Deus , in illâ diè quâ venturus est , sed secundùm suas , vt ipse statuit . In ●pso formationis modo legem induxit quam ego nùnc scribo . At quaenam illa est ? Haec vtique : Eam sibi quisque vxorem seruet semper quam initio sortitus est , haec lex antìquior est , quam illa dè libello repudij , & in tantùm quantùm Adam ipso Mose . Doo not tell me of mens new lawes concerning diuorcement , but of Gods olde lawe concerning marriage , for God at the day of iudgement shall not iudge thee according to the lawe which man hath deuised , but according to that which his selfe hath commaunded . But the positiue lawe which God prescribed to man in his creation was this , that hee should during life cleaue vnto that wife which he hath at the first taken vnto him . And that lawe of marriage is by so much more auncient then this of diuorcement , as innocencie is before sinne , and Adam before Moses . Againe : Quemadmodum serui fugitini etiamsi domum herilem relinquant , catenam secum habent attrahentem : it à & mulieres etiamsi viros relinquant , legem habent prò catenâ se p●rsequentem , & adulterij accusantem , accusantem etiam recipientes . As when a seruant runneth from his M. the chaine of bondage doth pursue him , and bring him backe againe to his maister , so when a woman leaueth her husband , the lawe of Matrimony is as a chaine to draw her back againe to her husband , to lay adultry to her charge for her departure , and adultery to their charge which shall receiue her .

In which words he speaketh plainly , it is adulterie for man and wife to depart , and it is adulterie for them to marry againe . Moreouer : Mulier quàm diu vixerit maritus subdita est legi , quae autèm subdita est legi , etiamsi millies libellum repudij det , adulterij ligabitur lege . The woman is bound by the lawe to the man while hee liueth , but shee which is bounde by the lawe , shall bee an adultresse by the lawe , if shee leaue her husband , notwithstanding a thousand Bills of diuorcement .

Concerning the second proposition , that hee which hath put away his wife can marrie no other while she liueth .

The second followeth the first as a necessarie consequent , because a man cannot put away his wife , he cannot marrie an other . For , numerosum coniugium , multitude of wiues is not permitted , no man may bee the husband of two wiues . The grounds are laid downe alreadie in the handling of the first proposition , so that it shal be sufficient in the second to answere the reasons of them which maintain contrary doctrine , and because in so short a scantling I cannot touch them all , I will speake of some . The differences of opinions which they hold are these ; some , that the man by priuiledge of his Sexe may marry againe , but the woman may not : others , that the partie innocent may marry , but the nocent may not : of which I shall haue fitter occasion to speake when I come to the third proposition , and in the handling of this proposition I will answere Beza , which alleadgeth 7. Lib de diuortio . reasons why a man may diuorce his wife for incontinencie , & that after diuorcement is graunted , both the man and the woman , the offended and the offendor may marry again .

His first argument is this : Christ being asked what he held concerning that diuorcement , which in his daies was in vse & practise among the Iewes , which was not only a seperation from bed and boord , but also a dissolution of the knot of marriage , that libertie was giuen to marry againe ? answered , that in case of adultery it was lawfull . To which I answere , that as Beza alleadgeth , so our sauiour Christ did speak of that diuorcement , which was then practised & vnderstood to be a dissolution of marriage , & intended that they might marry againe . But how did our Sauiour speake of it ? not affirmatiuely , but negatiuely , as before I shewed ; so that this argument is a fallacie called petitio principij , and he disputeth ex non coucessis , taking that as graunted which from the beginning we haue denied : he vnderstandeth the answer of our sauiour to be affirmatiue , which is negatiue : to be particular , which is vniuersall : to be hypotheticall , which is categoricall : to containe but two propositions , which comprehendeth three , and so constereth this text contrary to the analogy of faith , and of this place , contrary to the iudgement of the soundest Fathers , the Canon lawe , the practice of Christ his Church , from the Apostles vntill his owne time , yea contrary to the nature of wedlock , to the expresse words of our Sauiour , as I haue shewed . Grat decret 2. pars . 32. causa . 7 quaest. 1. & 2. cap Aug. de bono coniugali ▪ cap 7. The Lawe saith : Interueniente diuortio , non abeletur confaederatio nuptialis , it a vt si coniuges sint seperati , cùm illis adulterium committant , quibus etiam fuerint post repudium copulati . They which are seperated remaine man and wife after seperation , and they liue in adulterie if they marrie other , because the knot of marriage abideth firme . Dè adult . con●ug . li. 2. cap. 4. Againe saith S. Augustine , euen as he which hath once receiued the Sacrament of baptisme , cannot be vnbaptized againe while he liueth ; so they which haue entred into the holy estate of marriage , cannot be vnmarried againe while they liue . And as one Councell saith : Concil. placuit secundum euangelicam & apostolicam doctrinam , Mil●uitan cap. 17. vt neque dimissus àb vxore nèc dimissa à marito , alteri coniungantur , sèd it à maneant , aut sibi reconcilientur . It is the doctrine of the Apostles and Euangelistes , that neither the man nor the woman which are parted , shall marry againe , but either refraine from marriage , or reconcile themselues one to the other . Neither must they beeing reconciled , bee married a new as some of late haue practised among vs , because the knot being not broken the first marriage is firme .

His second obiection : that it is iniustice to punish the innocent for the nocent : but if when diuorcement is graunted , yet the plaintiue which hath sued the diuorce , shall be restrained from marriage , he must either be in daunger of burning in lust , because he cannot containe , or else be compelled to receiue again his adulterous wife which was diuorced : then is it all one as if there had bene no diuorcement . So Augustines answere is : Ad Pollentium . lib. 2. cap. 10. Lex diuina non est mutanda proptèr querelas hominum , si querelas incontinentium velimus admittere , necesse est quamplurima adulteriae permittere . Mans complaint of iniustice must not alter the law of God . And if the Magistrates eares shall bee open to such complaintes , the high way shall bee laide open to incontinent liuers . Innocentius hath sayd well to the purpose , a woman may bee long sicke of an infectious disease , which crosse is remedilesse , why cannot the husband as well conteine in case of adulterie as of sicknesse ? and where Beza replieth that the case is different betweene a diseased person whom the hand of God hath afflicted , and one which by adulterie hath made a voluntarie breach of wedlocke : that is no replye , because in respect of the plaintiue which hath not the gift of continencie the gift is all one , and yet sometimes it falleth out , that women haue daungerous infections , not onely by the hand of GOD , but also by theyr owne misdemeanour of themselues .

The third , 1. Cor. 7. is an allegation of the Apostle : He which cannot abstaine , must marry , but a man which is seperated from his wife may want chastitie , and therefore must marry . I answere S. Paul out of S. Paul , hee which cannot containe let him marry , but let him marry in the Lord , nubat in domino , not otherwise , but he cannot marry in the Lord which is married alreadie ; hee cannot take a second wife which is not freed from the first : therefore if he cannot containe , let him bee reconciled to his wife , that is a present remedie against fornication .

The fourth : hee asketh ( whereas S. Augustine saith the man is bound to forgiue his wife vppon repentance ) what if her repentance bee but fayned ? and what if after forgiuenesse there bee a relapse into adulterye againe ? why should a Christian bee bounde to such an inconuenience ? I answere , that whereas hee thinketh it an hard condition for a man to forgiue his wife vppon repentance , beeing not assured whether shee repent vnfainedly or no ; nor resolued whether shee will afterwarde remaine chaste or no : The like may bee obiected against them which are excommunicated by the keyes of the Church , which shewing themselues penitent doo craue absolution , and to bee receiued againe into the congregation of the faithfull : hee which is to pronounce absolution cannot iudge of the contrition of the inward man , and yet hee must absolue , and leaue the rest to God , which knoweth the secrets of the heart . Man can goe but by outward appearance , and in charitie hope the best . So must a man doo by his wife ; We must not negare lapsis paenitentiam , dispaire of them that fall , because they may arise againe . Mat. 18. Christ beeing asked by Peter how often a man must forgiue his brother ? answered , seuentie times seuen , but if a brother , much more a wife . Therefore saith S. Augustine : Adpoll . l 2. Durum tibi videtur adulteri coniugi reconciliari ? cap. 6. & ● . durum non erit si fides adsit . Cur adhùc deputamus adulteros vèl baptismo lotos vel paenitenta sanatos ? Doth it seeme an hard condition to thee to be reconciled to thy adulterous wife ? If it seeme difficult , then faith is wanting : where is charitie , if we condemne them still to bee adulterous which are cleansed by the water of baptisme , and washed by the teares of repentance ? He rendereth a reason of this doctrine . In the olde Lawe men were frobidden to receiue such women as were polluted by adulterie , beeing so hainous offence as it could not be cleansed by sacrifice , but vnder the new Testament by the bloud of Christ , 1. Sam. 18. which is a more worthy sacrifice then all the rest , all offences are forgiuen , and therefore Dauid as a figure of the new Testament receiued Saules daughter an adulterous woman ; and since , Iohn . 8. Christ hath said to the woman , I will not condemne thee , sinne no more ; Quis non videt ignoscere debere maritum cui ignouisse videt Dominum ? shal not the husband forgiue her whom Christ hath forgiuen ? or esteeme her as polluted whom the bloud of Christ hath cleansed ? Quibus hoc Christi factum displicet , hos non seueros castitas fecit , sed ipsi aegroti medicum reprehendunt , in adulteros adulteri saeuiunt . They which like not of this iudgement of Christ , are not so seuere against others because themselues are chaste , but themselues beeing sicke , mislike their phisition ; and punish adultery , being adulterous themselues ; like the men which brought the woman to our Sauiour to be stoned , their selues being offenders . I aske saith he , whether it bee lawful to put her to death by the law of the Romanes , or to put her away by the lawe of God ? Si licet , melius est vt ab vtroque se temperet , & a licito illâ peccante supplicio , & ab illicito illâ viuente coniugio , quum eni●● vtrumque secundum legam Christi sit illicitum , siuè adulteram occidere , siuè illâ viuente aliam ducere , ab vtroque est abstinendum , nec illicitum prò illicito faciendum . If it be lawfull to doo either , yet is it better to do neither of them . Not to do all which in extremitie we may , but to abstaine from that lawful punishment when she offendeth , & this vnlawfull marriage while she liueth . But seeing both are vnlawfull by the law of Christ , which neither determineth that adulterie should be punished with death , neither alloweth a man to marry againe while the adulteresse liueth ; both are to be forborne , and one sinne is not to be requited with an other .

The fi●t : If the husband may not put away his wife for adulterie and marry an other , then must the gap be opened to dishonestie , and a chaste man must will he , nil he , be subiect to an harlot . That which he alleadgeth against vs , maketh most of all for vs , the restraining of marriage after diuorcement is so farre from giuing occasion to be vnchaste , as it keepeth many within the bounds of chastitie , which otherwise would not containe : for who seeth not that if they which bee diuorced may marry againe , when husbands and wiues are weary one of an other , they will confesse adultry that they may be diuorced & mary others ?

The sixt , Concil. Aulatensis can. 10. is a decree of an auncient Councel , that such men as take their wiues in adulterie , themselues being chaste , and are prohibited to marry others should be perswaded to refraine while their wiues are liuing . This also maketh for vs , for the fathers in that councell were so farre from allowing the second marriage , that they withstood it two wayes , praecepto & consilio , both by commaundement , and also by aduice : by commaundement , because they say by lawe it was prohibited : by aduice , because they vsed perswasion to the contrary , hauing power of themselues by their decree to haue made it lawfull , had they not held it according to the word of God to be vnlawfull .

The last , Epiph. co●tra Cathores . is the authoritie of Epiphanius , saying : that if a man marry a second wife , his first beeing diuorced , hee is not subiect to the censure of the Church , so as hee conuerse but with one , and forsake the company of the other : but in such case his frailtie is tollerated . In which words , what doth Epiphanius say more then wee haue saide already , that the Church hath sometimes tolerated them which haue put away one wife and married an other : which practise if it were honest , and iust , & consonant to Gods word , what needed a tolleration ? Moses had not bene said to haue tollerated diuorcement , other Magistrates vsurie , other stewes , other drunkennesse , if these things had bene lawfull .

As for Melancthon which affirmeth that if the husband be vnkinde to his wife , and neglect the care of his family , the Christian Magistrate may warrant her to marry an other : his assertion is like the charters of great Princes , which write teste meipso , witnesse my self . For soundnesse of reason , testimony of scriptures , grounds of diuinitie , he can haue none in the fauour of so monstrous an opinion , neither doth he alledge any . If he haue any shewe of proofe to ground his absurditie vpon , it can bee but this . 1. Tim. 5. He which careth not for his family hath denied the faith . 1. Cor. 7. And if the vnbeleeuing husband will needes depart , let him , for a brother or sister is not subiect in such things . But these words were concerning such as were married , during the time of their infidelitie before they were conuerted to the faith ; of which sort we haue none in Christian Common-wealthes ; and yet not so as if an vnbeleeuing husband could be forced by the Magistrate to depart ; onely if he will depart saith the Apostle , let him depart , but if hee bee content to dwell with her , she must not forsake him : and still this conclusion standeth firme , if he do depart , so long as his wife liueth hee may not marry .

Of the third proposition , the woman which is diuorced may not marry .

Whosoeuer marrieth her which is diuorced committeth adulterie . It followeth then , that she remaineth stil his wife from whom she was diuorced , else it were no adulterie for a man to marry her , and if shee remaine his wife , then is he still her husband , notwithstanding the seperation , therefore it is no diuorcement . De adule , Coniug. li. 1. cap. 11. So saith Augustine : Illud qui dimissam duxerit maechatur , quo modo verum esse potest ? nisi quia ea quam duxit vxor , aliena est priori marito à quô dimissae est adhuc viuenti ? sienim suae , non alienae vxori miscetur , tùm non maechatur , at maechatur , ergo aliena est cui miscetur , si antèm aliena est , tùm non cessat illius essa vxor à quo dimissa est , si autem cessat , tum huius alterius est cui nupsit , et si huius , tùm non maechus iudicandus est sed maritus . That saying of our Sauiour : hee that marrieth her which is diuorced commiteth adultry : how can it be true ? vnlesse because the woman which he hath married , is an other mans wife : that is , his from whom she was diuorced , so long as he liueth ? for if he marry no mans wife but his owne , then is it no adultery : but it is adultery , therefore shee is an other mans wife , and not his owne , else he could not be iudged an adulterer , but her lawfull husband . Chrysost. de lib. re . pudij . Seruis quidèm licet mutare dominos viuentes , vxori autem non licebit viros commutare viuentes , alioqui adulterium perpetrabit . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 A seruant hath more libertie in the bondage of his seruice , then a woman in the freedome of her wedlocke , hee may chaunge maisters , shee may not chaunge husbands , while her first husband liueth . Secundae nuptiae priore marito viuente pollutio sunt non matrimonium . For if shee take an other husband she is defiled , but she is not married . If then he which marrieth her that is diuorced committeth adultery , why doth Beza allow her to marry ? His answere is : Whosoeuer marrieth her which is diuorced , vnlesse she be diuorced for adultery , committeth adultery by marrying her , but if she be diuorced for adulterie she may lawfully marry . By which answere doo but vouchsafe to take knowledge of the great inconueniences which shall bee brought , and burdens which shall be laide vppon a Christian kingdome . They which be married , wil vpon their discontentments commit fornication that they may be vnmarried , then it will bee no more then this : 〈◊〉 fatuum fateor , quem calceus vrget et vxnor , If a mans shooe pinch him , no more but goe to the shoomakers shop and buy a new paire of shooes : if a mans wife grieue him , a present remedy , to go to the church & mary a new wife . And then shal the question be , who shal keep the children ? S. Augustine is of a contrary iudgement to Beza . De adult . coniugijs . lib. 1. cap. 9. Qui dicimus : Qui mulierem praetèr fornicationém dimissam ducit maechatur , non ideò maechari negamus qui eāducit quae proptèr fornicationem dimissa est , vterque enim est maechus , qui ob fornicationem dimittit & aliam ducit , & etiàm qui citrà fornicationem dimittit & aliam ducit , non enim ex hoc alter maechus negatur quoniam alter maechus exprimitur . Wee which say , hee is an adulterer which marrieth her which is diuorced , vnlesse she be diuorced for adulterie : doo not therefore denie but he is an adulterer also which marrieth her that is diuorced for adulterie , for they are both adulterers , whether it be for fornication or not : if they marrie her which is put away . For the affirmation of the one to be an adulterer , is not a denial but that the other also is an adulterer . Although saith he , S. Mathew by expressing one adulterer , and concealing the other , hath made it hard to vnderstand , yet other Euangelists speaking in a generalitie haue made it plaine , that it is to be vnderstood of both , because Marke saith : M●c . 10. 11. Whosoeuer shall put away his wife and marry another , committeth adulterie against her : and if a woman put away her husband and marrie an other , Luc. 16. 18. she committeth adultery . And S. Luke hath the same . Qui ergo not sumus vt dicamus : Est qui maechatur vxore dimissa alteram ducens , & est qui hoc faciens non maechatur , quum euangèlium dicat omnem maechari qui hoc facit ? Who is man that hee should distinguish more subtilly then the holy Ghost hath distinguished ? saying : some men which put away their wiues and marry are adulterers , and others are not , when S. Marke and S. Luke being expositors of S. Mathew , shewe that all are adulterers which marry them which are put away , bee the cause of their diuorcement whatsoeuer ? Neither can this answere of Beza satisfie , that in Geneua adultery is punished with death , and so all controuersies are ended ; for then what needeth diuorcement ? If when the man hath put away his wife for adultery , the Magistrate doo put her to death , the case is cleare , he may marry againe : not because shee is diuorced , but because she is dead . But many Christian Lands haue no such lawe as to punish adulterie with death , neither are Christians bound to take examples by Iewes and Turkes which did , and do the same . The lawe of the Gospell hath imposed no such commaundement vpon vs , but euery kingdome hath Christian libertie to establish such ciuill lawes , as the wisedome of the land shall see fit for the state to beare . It doth not make against vs that by the lawe of God adultery was punished with death among the Iewes , no more then that by the Iawe of God , theft was not punished with death among the Iewes , but with restitution of foure and fiue-folde . It was not lawfull among the Iewes to gather the glaynings of their owne haruest , Ex. 22. 1. nor to let the bodies of them which are hanged to hang all night to sowe two sorts of graine together as Wheat and Rye in one field , Leuit. 19. 9 for Christians these things are lawful . Deut. 21. 23. God gaue three lawes vnto the Iewes , one moral which remaineth stil in force among all nations the second ceremoniall , which was abrogated by the death of Christ : the third iudiciall for ciuill gouernment , which did belong to the Iewes only but punishment of adultery with death was a part of the iudiciall lawe , and therefore bindeth not vs to obey it which be Christians . But S. Hierome saith : Ad Amandum presbyterum . Omnes occasiones Apostolus amputaens ●partè definit viu●nte viro adulteram asse mulierem si alteri nupserit . The Apostle preuenteth all qu●●kes and euasions , setting it downe as a positiue doctrine , that what woman soeuer marrieth while her first husband liueth , she committeth adultery : Ad Apollēt . li. 2. cap. 4. And S. Angustine : Licitè dimittitur coniux proptèr causam fornicationis , sed manet vinculum prioris proptèr quod reus sit adulterij qui dimissam duxerit , etiam ob causam fornicationis . Canon . apost. 47. A woman may bee seperated from her husband for fornication , but still shee is his wife , and he which marrieth her committeth adultry , although she were put away for fornication . In so great a cloude of witnesses of our side , wee may bebolde , notwithstanding the iudgement of Beza , and the late writers of the reformed Churches .

The Libertines of our age , now liuing , giue a prerogatiue in this case to the man aboue the woman , because of the Sexe , because the one is a man , the other but a woman ; as if the one might marrie , but not the other , abusing the word of God to their owne damnation , turning the grace of God into wantonnesse . Vindiciae contrà tyrannos . Euen as others will prooue rebellion and high treason out of the scriptures , that the people are aboue their King : out of the scirptures , so will they take libertie to themselues out of the scriptures , to maintaine theyr vncleane and licentious life , as that the man may put away the woman and not commit adultery in marrying an other , but the woman may not doo the like , because , say they , the man may haue many wiues , but the woman may not haue many husbandes . Theyr proofe is the saying of Nathan to Dauid . ● . Sam. 12. Thus sayth the Lord : I annoynted thee King ouer Israel , deliuered thee out of the hand of Saule , gaue thee thy Lordes house , and thy Lordes wiues into thy bosome , and if that hadde not beene inough , I would haue giuen thee such and such things : why then hast thou taken Vrias his wife ? Innocentius the third maketh answere , that Dauid and the Patriarkes hadde by particular dispensation from God , multitude of wiues , and were excused of poligamy , which wee are not : euen as Iacob tolde a lye , Gen. 27. the Israelites robbed the Aegyptians , Ex. 11. 2. Sampson murthered the Philistines , Iud. 16. 30. the Leuites compassed the walles of Iericho , Iosua . 6. 15. with their Trumpets of Rammes hornes vpon the Sabaoth day , but wee may not do the like . But saith he : Christiana religio adulterium in vtroque sexu aquali ratione punit . Innocentius Epist. 3. ad Exeuperiun . De 10 chordis cap. 3. Christian religion punisheth adulterie in man and woman both alike . And Augustine : Tu exigis hoc ab vxore & non vis reddere hoc vxori ? Marriage duties must be kept as well of the man as of the woman .

Others there be , which make a distinction betweene the partie innocent and the partie nocent ; as if the one might marry , but not the other . But that the partie nocent may marry as well as the innocent , I prooue by these foure reasons . The first , the custome and practise of the Iewish Church when Moses liued , from whence the Christians haue learned diuorcement , Moses saith : Deut. 24. If a man take a wife , and shee finde no fauour in his eies , because he hath espied filthinesse in her , in so much that he doo giue her a Bill of diuorcement , and she marry an other , and her second husband diuorce her in like maner , or die , let her not returne to her first husband againe , after shee is defiled . By which word it is euident , that when Moses liued , women which were diuorced for adulterie did marry againe , as well as their husbands which did diuorce them . The second , is the set forme of words which the Iewes at this time doo vse in their Bills of diuorcement , which is after this manner . In the sixt of the Sabaoth , the 12. of the moneth of Adar , the yeare of the creation of the world , 5306. in the Citie of Cremona , lying vpon the Riuer of Poe in Italy ; I Samuel Carmin , the sonne of Rabbi Daniel Saphard , doo of mine owne vuluntarie motion send away from mee , my wife Rachel , the daughter of Rabbi Ezra Parizol , and do giue her free liberty to depart whether she will , and marry whom she will : and that there may be no let●e or hinderance to the contrary : Sixti senensis Biblioth. sanct. lib. 2. ex libro Rabbi Mosis d● Co●i . I haue giuen her this Bill of diuorcement , subscribed and sealed according to the constitution of Moses and Israel , in the presence of these witnesses : Mardochi Gabriel , Elias Cephat , Manuel Pandin . The third , the definition of diuorcement , which is giuen by our Sauiour Christ in the Gospell : it is a seperating of them by the lawe of man , which are linked together by the law of God , which is as much as the vntying of the knotte of marriage so that if the knot be vntied , both are free . The husband & the wife are relat● , one cannot be without the other : if she be bound , she is some bodies wife , then he which diuorced her is her husband : there cannot be a wife without an husband , nor an husband without a wife . The 4. wheras they which speak in fauour of the party innocent , take aduantage of the words , & argue thus : He which putteth away his wife , vnles it be for fornication , and taketh an other , committeth adultry ▪ therefore if it be for fornication , it is no adultry . If that kinde of arguing bee good , I can by the same , prooue that the partie nocent may likewise marry , & thus I argue : He which marrieth her which is diuorced , vnles shee be diuorced for fornication , committe●h adultry ▪ therefore if he marry her which is diuorced for fornication , it is no adultry . Thus haue I prooued that neither man nor woman , nocent nor innocent , may marry againe : and leauing doctrine , I come to exhortation .

S. Paul saith : I am a debter to all , Rom. ● both to the wise and the vnwise , I haue ministred already strong meate vnto them which are men , I must now giue milk vnto them which are babes , and do as the Scribe did ▪ which when the Iew did demaund of him a Bill of diuorcement , did disswade him : So , that I may disswade all that intend it , and perswade them which haue alreadie done it , to receiue their wiues into fauour againe . Iohn the Baptist came in the spirit of Elias , Mal. 4. to turne the hearts of the fathers to the children . I pray God that I may come also in the spirit of Elias and Iohn the Baptist , to turne , not onely the hearts of the fathers to the children , but also the husbandes to theyr wiues : which dooing , I shall doo a worke of charitie , a peece of seruice acceptable vnto God . Why should a man diuorce his wife ? why should hee not vpon her repentance receiue her againe after shee is put away ? S. Peter w●●●eth to all husbandes in this manner . 1. Pat. ● . 7. Ye husbands , dwell with your wiues as men of knowledge , giuing honour vnto the woman as vnto the weaker vessell , euen as they which are heires together of the grace of life , that your prayers bee not interrupted ▪ In which I obserue the generallitie that husbands must dwell with their wiues , and not depart from them : the fiue particulars , how they must dwell with them ; as men of knowledge . Wherein doth this knowledge or discretion consist ? in giuing honour to the woman ? why should the man giue honour to the woman ? because shee is the weaker vessell . Why should her weaknes be so much respected , as that honour should be giuen to her fragilitie ? because notwithstanding her weaknes & infirmity , she is an heire & co-heire of saluation as well as her husband , and therfore he must respect her as himselfe . What is the mischiefe and inconuenience which else may followe ? God cannot be well serued betweene them both , because their praiers will be interrupted .

The Husbandes then must dwell with their wiues , what that is , it is explaned by Saint Paul , the best expositor of Saint Peter ; ( Be it spoken with circumcised hearts ) The husband ( saith Paul ) must giue due benevolence to the wife , 1. Cor. ● . & the wife to the husband● what that is he sheweth afterward , ( let no man thinke that vncleane which the holy Ghost hath spoken ) The wife hath not power ouer her owne bodie but the man ; and the man hath not power ouer his owne bodie , but the woman . Againe : Defraude not one an other except it be for a time , that yee may giue your selues to fasting and praier , and come together againe , least sathan tempt you for your incontinency . To dwell with a mans wife , is to be an helpe vnto her , as Ioseph was to Mary ▪ hee which hath not a care of his familie , 1. Tim. 5. hath denied the faith : but he which forsaketh the company of his wife , doth neglect his family two manner of wayes : first concerning thrift , secondly concerning good name and same , because both of them shall be suspected to be incontinent liuers .

Husbands must dwell with their wiues as men of knowledge . Ephe. 5. The man is the womans head , 1. Cor. 11. as Christ is the mans head , and God is Christs head , the woman is but the Image of the man , as the man is the Image of God . But there must needes be more perfection in the head wherein are all the senses , vegetation & vnderstanding , them in the bodie which hath but vegetation & one only sense , that is feeling ; in the body , then in the shadowe ; in the archetypus or first forme , then in the Image of the same . All beasts in the old lawe were vncleane , and vnfit for sacrifice , which did not ruminate and chewe the cudde : there was represented discretion , but men must be better than are beastes , therefore they must liue discreetly with their wiues , but a discreet man will of himselfe consider , that by how much he excelleth his wife in knowledge vnderstanding and all maner of perfection , so he ought to conceale many infirmities in the woman , to deuour , and as it were swallow vp many indignities which do arise of her weakenesse . God saith : Hencefoorth my spirit shall not 〈◊〉 with man because bee is flesh : you 〈…〉 set your wit to theirs , they are but flesh , and you in comparison of them are spirit . And ●as a belee●ing husband may sanctifie & 〈◊〉 an vnbeleeuing wife 〈◊〉 so discreet man may reforme an vndiscreet wife , euen as when the bodie is out of temper , it is in the wisedome of the head to cure the bodie , and bring the disordered members into order .

Husbands must giue honour vnto their wiues . There is one honour which the inferiour doth owe to his supeririour , 1. Pet. 2. Feare God , and honour the King . Another which superiours owe to their inferiours , and all one to another , 1. Cor. 1● . Honour all men . In giuing honour , goe before one an other . All members ( saith Paule ) are not alike , but on those members which we thinke most dishonest , we put most honestie on : vpon our vncomely parts we put most comelines on , for our comely parts need it not , but God hath tempered the bodie together , and giuen more honour to the member that lacketh . And so must husbands do to their wiues .

The woman is the weaker vessell , and the man himselfe is but a vessell , and notwithstanding his strength hee is but weake . He doth not say : Giue honour to the ●●man because she is good , but because she is weake : not for her vertue , but for her fragilitie : for your selues are so , or may be so Brethren saith Paul , Gala. ▪ 5. 〈◊〉 . If a man be suddenly taken in an offence , you which be spirituall , must restore such an●one with the spirit of meeknes , considering ●est thou also be tempted , beare one an others burden ▪ 〈◊〉 fulfil the law of Christ . We haue 〈…〉 examples of women which were 〈◊〉 vessels . Gen. 3. The woman was the first in the preuarication and not the man . Abraham beleeued the Angell when Sara laughed . 3. Tim. ● . Lots wife did looke back towards Sodome , Gen. 18. Lot did not . Gen. 19. Moses his wife repined at her childes circumcision , himselfe did not . Exod. 4. Sara was so hard h●rted as to turne Agar out of doores , Gen. 21. Abraham was not . Iezabel could without remorse of conscience set downe the whole plot and proiect how Naboth should loose his life and his vineyard , 1. Reg. 21. Achab could not . Math. 20. The wife of Zebedeus could audaciously aske of our Sauiour Christ that her sonnes might sit on his right hand & his left , her husb̄d could not . Salomons wiues corrupted him , 1. Reg. 21. he corrupted them not . Iudg. 1● . and 16. Sampsons wife betraied him , he betraied not her . Some of these offen●● were worse than adultery , yet their husband did not nourish hatred against them .

Though they be weake vessells ; yet are they heires of the kingdome of heauen as well as their husbands . 〈…〉 Christ was borne a man , 1. Tim. 2. but borne of woman , that he might sanctifie both man and woman ; through childbirth the woman shal be saued , if they continue in the faith , and loue , and holinesse , with modestie . The word of God hath giuen precepts of godly life vnto women , that liuing godlily as did Elizabeth , Sara , Anna , Rebecca , they might be saued , The man and wife are to liue together in the life to come , not as a man and wife , but as the Angels and Saints in heauen , why then shal they liue asunder vpon the earth ?

If they liue not together , theyr prayers shal be interrupted . This reason alone is sufficient to compose and qualifie all greeuances between man & wife . They ought to pray together , for prayer is a principall part of Gods seruice ; and if they will haue God to be deuoutly serued , al grudges and quarrels must be layd aside . Pro. 18. God heareth not the prayers of them which be sinfull : no greater sinne then continuall fostering of hatred and inward malice . Iosua . Iosua saith , I and my house will serue the Lord : Luc. 1. Zacharie and his wife with him walked in the ordinances of God without reproofe . And it is the maner of you Citizens when you are dead , to haue your wiues and your selues pictured vpon your graues , lifting vp your hands and praying together . But it is plaine mockery to be pictured praying together vpon your graues when you are dead , if so be that you doo not pray together in your houses while you are aliue : and therefore learne by the marble monuments and pictures of the dead , what yee ought to doo while ye are aliue . Deut. ●2 . I ende with Moses , beseeching God that my doctrine may be as the raine , and my speech as the deawe of heauen and the showre vpon the hearbes , and as the great raine vpon the grasse , For I will publish the name of the Lord : giue ye glory vnto our God . To this God the Father , the Sonne , and the holy Ghost , be all power , glory and dominion , both now and for euermore . Amen .

FINIS .